Do you have any idea why the bc template is being removed from pages? Seems like there have been a decision from Kirkburn and Adys on IRC once again without any information about it here on the wiki. Read here for more info: [[User_talk:Hobinheim#Removing_BC_template.3F]]. Will log into IRC once I'm home from work and talk with Kirkburn and/or Adys and ask them why it's being removed. --[[User:Ragowit|Ragowit]] 07:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Do you have any idea why the bc template is being removed from pages? Seems like there have been a decision from Kirkburn and Adys on IRC once again without any information about it here on the wiki. Read here for more info: [[User_talk:Hobinheim#Removing_BC_template.3F]]. Will log into IRC once I'm home from work and talk with Kirkburn and/or Adys and ask them why it's being removed. --[[User:Ragowit|Ragowit]] 07:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

−

: There's more admins on IRC than just me an Adys (and I wasn't actually really part of this decision). What's being done is to remove the {{t|bc}} templates from everything, and then replacing it on the pages that really deserve it. We have 30,000+ articles - it's nigh-on impossible to ensure every BC-related article is marked (it also is quite bad from a design PoV). Therefore the banner is best used only on things like Outland zones, cities and major content.

+

: There's more admins on IRC than just me an Adys (and I wasn't actually really part of this decision). What's being done is to remove the T:Bc templates from everything, and then replacing it on the pages that really deserve it. We have 30,000+ articles - it's nigh-on impossible to ensure every BC-related article is marked (it also is quite bad from a design PoV). Therefore the banner is best used only on things like Outland zones, cities and major content.

: This is the kind of discussion that is best brought to the Village pump, btw, not as appeals to individual admins (and, yes, the original decision should also have been noted on the VP - note this was occuring before I made a point of it to the IRC guys). {{User:Kirkburn/Sig3}} 07:17, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: This is the kind of discussion that is best brought to the Village pump, btw, not as appeals to individual admins (and, yes, the original decision should also have been noted on the VP - note this was occuring before I made a point of it to the IRC guys). {{User:Kirkburn/Sig3}} 07:17, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Line 56:

Line 56:

::: You see a lot of things. Yeah I shouldn't be as quiet on talk pages as I am. However, a lot has been done because we ignored the whole 'ask and decide' process.

::: You see a lot of things. Yeah I shouldn't be as quiet on talk pages as I am. However, a lot has been done because we ignored the whole 'ask and decide' process.

−

::: This is a wiki. Changes are recorded, nothing is ever lost. Deleted stuff can be undeleted. Wrong changes can be reverted. Massive changes can be botted. Perhaps you will remember that about 6-8 weeks ago the wiki had huge server load problems, and a complete lack of normalization amongst pages. With the help of [[WoWWiki:IRC|the IRC chan]], decisions were taken much much faster and stuff actually got done. [[WW:EL]] got implemented in no time and we could have a solid policy about it. {{t|bc}} was botted away so that instead of 3000 pages looking ugly we only had 15 lacking a template. Parser Functions were very quickly dealt with once the MW upgrade done because we had the IRC chan up.

+

::: This is a wiki. Changes are recorded, nothing is ever lost. Deleted stuff can be undeleted. Wrong changes can be reverted. Massive changes can be botted. Perhaps you will remember that about 6-8 weeks ago the wiki had huge server load problems, and a complete lack of normalization amongst pages. With the help of [[WoWWiki:IRC|the IRC chan]], decisions were taken much much faster and stuff actually got done. [[WW:EL]] got implemented in no time and we could have a solid policy about it. T:Bc was botted away so that instead of 3000 pages looking ugly we only had 15 lacking a template. Parser Functions were very quickly dealt with once the MW upgrade done because we had the IRC chan up.

::: This isn't me blaming you because you're not on IRC. It's just a reminder that things get done faster because of an united decision. If you want to join IRC you're more than welcome. If you don't, you can grab daily logs [http://ibot.rikers.org/%23wowwiki/ here].

::: This isn't me blaming you because you're not on IRC. It's just a reminder that things get done faster because of an united decision. If you want to join IRC you're more than welcome. If you don't, you can grab daily logs [http://ibot.rikers.org/%23wowwiki/ here].

::: Now I know you anyways didn't like me since pretty much day 1 and I honestly don't exactly have a clue why. I've been wrong in alot of changes done but that doesn't mean I killed someone. As I said on first line, this is a wiki. Bad changes can get reverted. --{{User:Adys/Sig}} 18:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Now I know you anyways didn't like me since pretty much day 1 and I honestly don't exactly have a clue why. I've been wrong in alot of changes done but that doesn't mean I killed someone. As I said on first line, this is a wiki. Bad changes can get reverted. --{{User:Adys/Sig}} 18:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Contents

We had to rollback your change to {{Tooltip}} as it appeared to break some tooltips. Please, if you want to change a template like that, mention it on the IRC or somewhere first - it's frustrating having to deal with 10 mins downtime out of the blue. Especially when Kaso was testing out his bot! Thanks :) Kirkburntalkcontr 21:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If you're not having a good night, fine, but the fact is, the change broke tooltips, and we had to revert it (though the first attempt at that went wrong unfortunately). This is why the IRC channel is so useful so everyone can be up to speed on things and that you can discuss changes with the rest of the admins first (four of whom are on the channel now). Sorry if I came across harshly in the edit note, etc, but it was a frustrating half an hour - if you don't believe me when I said it broke - see the very bottom of [1]. Kirkburntalkcontr 21:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I see the problem. I guess I'm just mad that Rustak made you a bureaucrat without consulting me. He's gone dark on me with e-mail and I get the sense I'm being cut out of alot of decisions being made about WoWWiki on IRC.

I will try to pop on IRC before making any changes like I did, but I'm starting to think having a monolithic tooltip template is a really bad idea. --Fandyllic(talk · contr) 6:47 PDT 21 Mar 2007

Cool. I don't wish to subvert you in any way, but times move on. IRC has been really useful in co-ordinating many of the recent changes - it certainly isn't meant to cut anyone out. Rustak is on IRC btw. If you're able, I suggest just idling on IRC when possible. It's useful to be able to dip in and out of conversation. Lots of people stay quiet much of the day/week. Kirkburntalkcontr 21:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey Fandy - I should mention, now that the job queue has been pretty much fixed, templates like tooltip can be edited again "easily" :) Kirkburntalkcontr 10:45, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I was just trying to make the distinction between the actual mount and the item you keep in your bag to summon the mount. I know its sort of picky. It could just be a redirect to the summoning item. If you want to make redirects, please do. --Fandyllic(talk · contr) 11:30 AM PDT 20 Apr 2007

I noticed there was some disagreement between the Allakhazam info (speech by Altruis) and the other DBs, so I stubbed it, but I should have put an explanation in the discussion. Also, there could be a little more info

I changed the Group-2 since this particular quest doesn't really need more than one, its the followups that need more. Also, this kind of info should go in the Notes or Details as something like "The recommended group size for this quest is 2."

Thanks. I already find Allakhazam more reliable for reputation awards. I'll have to start looking at Wowhead too. I disagree that the (Group-2) marking is wrong because I feel that particular tag is to indicate how the quest is marked in-game. I agree that that quest is really soloable, and that it seems mis-marked by blizzard. But marking it by subjective criteria opens a can of worms I don't think we should be getting into. ... just my 2. --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:14, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Do you have any idea why the bc template is being removed from pages? Seems like there have been a decision from Kirkburn and Adys on IRC once again without any information about it here on the wiki. Read here for more info: User_talk:Hobinheim#Removing_BC_template.3F. Will log into IRC once I'm home from work and talk with Kirkburn and/or Adys and ask them why it's being removed. --Ragowit 07:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

There's more admins on IRC than just me an Adys (and I wasn't actually really part of this decision). What's being done is to remove the T:Bc templates from everything, and then replacing it on the pages that really deserve it. We have 30,000+ articles - it's nigh-on impossible to ensure every BC-related article is marked (it also is quite bad from a design PoV). Therefore the banner is best used only on things like Outland zones, cities and major content.

This is the kind of discussion that is best brought to the Village pump, btw, not as appeals to individual admins (and, yes, the original decision should also have been noted on the VP - note this was occuring before I made a point of it to the IRC guys). Kirkburntalkcontr 07:17, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

It seems logical to me to put this discussion at Template talk:bc (no mention of removing them here yet, unfortunately). It would seem harder to find this among the myriad of Village pump threads, but it is here: WoWWiki talk:Village pump#The BC template. The thread in Village pump seems strangely lacking in content for a process to be implemented. The new order appears to be more of the "ask forgiveness, rather than permission" type. --Fandyllic(talk · contr) 2:28 PM 13 May 2007

You see a lot of things. Yeah I shouldn't be as quiet on talk pages as I am. However, a lot has been done because we ignored the whole 'ask and decide' process.

This is a wiki. Changes are recorded, nothing is ever lost. Deleted stuff can be undeleted. Wrong changes can be reverted. Massive changes can be botted. Perhaps you will remember that about 6-8 weeks ago the wiki had huge server load problems, and a complete lack of normalization amongst pages. With the help of the IRC chan, decisions were taken much much faster and stuff actually got done. WW:EL got implemented in no time and we could have a solid policy about it. T:Bc was botted away so that instead of 3000 pages looking ugly we only had 15 lacking a template. Parser Functions were very quickly dealt with once the MW upgrade done because we had the IRC chan up.

This isn't me blaming you because you're not on IRC. It's just a reminder that things get done faster because of an united decision. If you want to join IRC you're more than welcome. If you don't, you can grab daily logs here.

Now I know you anyways didn't like me since pretty much day 1 and I honestly don't exactly have a clue why. I've been wrong in alot of changes done but that doesn't mean I killed someone. As I said on first line, this is a wiki. Bad changes can get reverted. --Adys 18:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I sort of agree with Adys. I like a quicker-paced, more progress-oriented approach. However, I also agree with Fandy that the discussions should be available on the appropriate Talk pages, such that pressence on IRC isn't required to gain a gist of how different editors feel about a given issue. Voting and deciding and what not is a completely different beast. I think if an issue has been brought to light in the pump or IRC or through the appropriate RFC tags in a reasonable amount of time with no objections, I think that would be good enough to greenlight a change. Including notifying an admin. Usually telling one of us gets the word spread around, at least on IRC, so that we know of larger changes, possibly made by bots and what not.--Hobinheim(talk · contr) 18:37, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

A few comments:

Making decisions in IRC is not what I'm opposed to. I'm opposed to implementing those decisions without any mention in the wiki itself or such minimal or cryptic mentions that there is very little record of the decision. This has now happened several times.

To be honest, I haven't seen alot of what I'd think of as progress in WoWWiki policy-wise. Getting WW:EL ratified and implemented quickly isn't very impressive when a bulk of the participants are part of the IRC group and those who weren't I wouldn't count as among our more active non-admin contributors.

Alot of efforts lately give me the feeling of being imposed by a small group rather than occurring through a more consensus oriented approach which I felt was more prevalent in the early days of the wiki. This is really what I miss. Alot of actions smell of "we know best" which is almost always a dark road.

Using the excuse that everything is on record and things can be reverted as a fallback for a series of potentially bad decisions sounds like a weak argument to me, but I don't sense bad intentions, so I suppose it works. The problem is things discussed outside the wiki are not in the wiki's record and many changes have lately been discussed and finalized off the record. This completely belies the excuse of things being recorded. If the the IRC decisions get recorded in appropriate places with at least some effort to describe the reasoning, I'm okay with it, but I don't think that is really happening.

Lastly, stop pretending that my absence from IRC is "okay", because it obviously isn't. It's clear that the body of folks who prefer using IRC to make decisions on IRC don't want to really accommodate those who don't, but would rather just talk people into coming to IRC. The more you pretend to "welcome" me, the less I want to join up, since there would still be the clear sense that I'm an "outsider". You'll notice that I have tried to avoid an edit war for the most part, because despite my contributions on the admininstrative side, WoWWiki is still a useful resource.

Sometimes things just change. WoWWiki isn't my life, so if you guys want to run it contrary to my input, that's okay. I just don't want to leave the impression that I agree with all the tactics and that I wouldn't do things differently given the choice. --Fandyllic(talk · contr) 6:38 PM PDT 15 May 2007

I'm just popping in to say that without IRC, Rustak (no offense) might have forgotten to upgrade our tiny little wiki, and then we'd still be stuck with 1.6. :). That, tbh, is a big, big, change. --Sky (t · c · w) 21:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Not true, if Rustak read his e-mail, it would have happened also. --Fandyllic(talk · contr) 6:47 PM PDT 15 May 2007

for example death revenant note that theses are things from warcraft and articles on them serve to inform of them killing off creature articles is a realy realy bad idea Scorpx2 00:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)scorpx2

I marked it speedy delete a long time ago. At that time the article only contained the following: DISMEBold textzz